After a lot of analyzing, even though most of these struggles are universally human, you guys just want your perspective in your own context to be understood, right? For a long time, Fi sometimes came off as "I am so special... no one can understand the human condition like or as much as I can". It rubbed me the wrong way because from my perspective, I would be like "Aren't we all human? Shouldn't we all understand the human condition?"

After a lot of analyzing, even though most of these struggles are universally human, you guys just want your perspective in your own context to be understood, right?

Bingo!

And "be understood" is just that. No implication that it's "better": note how the Fi types communicate with each other. They don't argue about who has the best perspective, they share perspectives. Each perspective adds to total understanding. Others are free to accept or reject any given perspective/judgment for oneself, but it is considered rude to just dismiss it without attempting to understand it. One demonstrates one's understanding by saying something like, "Yeah, I remember when something similar happened to me, it was like of like ..." and so on.

So, the same way I switch into the "maybe" and "I think that perhaps" mode of Ti users, so that they can more easily digest my ideas (rather than asserting them point blank "as the truth" - even though other Te users know I'm not asserting any absolute), it should in theory be possible for Fe users to go into a "Here's a story about how I handled a similar situation," instead of "You really shouldn't behave like that."

For a long time, Fi sometimes came off as "I am so special... no one can understand the human condition like or as much as I can". It rubbed me the wrong way because from my perspective, I would be like "Aren't we all human? Shouldn't we all understand the human condition?"

Yeah, it's Fe that is trying to figure out what the "best perspective" is. Fe is sharing perspectives, too, but it is more blunt and open to negotiation. Fe is about a "shared understanding." Fi is about "sharing individual perspectives."

A particular tendency is that Fi speaks in terms of "I" so as to clarify that "this is just me, and may not apply to you." Fe speaks in terms of "you" to clarify that one is expressing interest and concern for the other person.

We are all human, and we all try to understand the human condition. Fi reaches understanding from the inside out. Fe reaches understanding from the outside, in.

And "be understood" is just that. No implication that it's "better": note how the Fi types communicate with each other. They don't argue about who has the best perspective, they share perspectives. Each perspective adds to total understanding. Others are free to accept or reject any given perspective/judgment for oneself, but it is considered rude to just dismiss it without attempting to understand it. One demonstrates one's understanding by saying something like, "Yeah, I remember when something similar happened to me, it was like of like ..." and so on.

So, the same way I switch into the "maybe" and "I think that perhaps" mode of Ti users, so that they can more easily digest my ideas (rather than asserting them point blank "as the truth" - even though other Te users know I'm not asserting any absolute), it should in theory be possible for Fe users to go into a "Here's a story about how I handled a similar situation," instead of "You really shouldn't behave like that."

Yeah, it's Fe that is trying to figure out what the "best perspective" is. Fe is sharing perspectives, too, but it is more blunt and open to negotiation. Fe is about a "shared understanding." Fi is about "sharing individual perspectives."

A particular tendency is that Fi speaks in terms of "I" so as to clarify that "this is just me, and may not apply to you." Fe speaks in terms of "you" to clarify that one is expressing interest and concern for the other person.

We are all human, and we all try to understand the human condition. Fi reaches understanding from the inside out. Fe reaches understanding from the outside, in.

Thank you so much for explaining that! It's strange. I usually am very good about acknowledging others' perspectives and trying to understand them IRL, but these forums seem to bring out the worst in me sometimes.

Thank you so much for explaining that! It's strange. I usually am very good about acknowledging others' perspectives and trying to understand them IRL, but these forums seem to bring out the worst in me sometimes.

If so, then your "worst" is actually very good and kind. You expressed your understanding very well, which is why I was able to provide a concise response.

And "be understood" is just that. No implication that it's "better": note how the Fi types communicate with each other. They don't argue about who has the best perspective, they share perspectives. Each perspective adds to total understanding. Others are free to accept or reject any given perspective/judgment for oneself, but it is considered rude to just dismiss it without attempting to understand it. One demonstrates one's understanding by saying something like, "Yeah, I remember when something similar happened to me, it was like of like ..." and so on.

Yesterday I got in a big argument with someone because I was straight out talking about our differences. They didn't "get" that I just thought it would be easier to discuss rather than pretend they weren't there. They got very upset because they understood it as an attack rather than a sharing since I was talking about differences. We can't understand each other if we don't know each other's perspective even if it clashes. I don't think I'm describing it very well but it was exactly what was explained in that quote. A quest to understand each other rather than convince each other.

An INTJ and I used to talk about how we didn't understand why people argued instead of just talking things out. We wondered why people don't just share perspectives, reach mutual understanding and move on. Was it Fi or was it just that we were that wonderful.

An INTJ and I used to talk about how we didn't understand why people argued instead of just talking things out. We wondered why people don't just share perspectives, reach mutual understanding and move on. Was it Fi or was it just that we were that wonderful.

im no intj, but i like to approach problems like this also. so i guess its just that you were so wonderful together

"Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
— C.G. Jung

It's not merely about consensus. It's about being able to achieve people-oriented goals. E.g., you want to sell a product, influence a vote, change a company policy, accomplish some task that requires persuading other people to agree with you. There's a bit of give and take, of course, but Fe keeps an overall goal in mind and gives up those things not relevant to the goal.

It is completely analogous to Te, in this regard. It's about people-logistics, as opposed to material logistics.

Understand that Fe is about a purpose and the Fi purpose is quite different. Te and Fe offend each other due to different core motives, but very often the motives are similar. Obvious motives/goals are aligned, e.g., making more money in a business. It's the more obscure material efficiencies and people-considerations that cause conflict.

In a thread encouraging Fi to speak up, just one word has opened a whole new insight into Fe for me: the word goal.

When I reflected on this last night, it explained so much that was previously confusing. I'm not even sure I can put it into words yet, but I will try. It's a way of thinking that is completely alien, so if I get this wrong, I'm just trying to word it in a way that makes sense to me. Not trying to offend anyone at all.

Remember that Fe list? After examination, I was able to articulate that most of my issue with it was that it described a person who's value set is closer to mine than the Fi list was, and once I could see that I was inferring a value set underneath all those statements, and the list wasn't describing that aspect of the equation, it made more sense to me. Still, lingering in my mind were some questions ... does Fe have a value set? Is it this "helper" one by default? How come I think an Fe users' behaviour changes dependent upon who they are dealing with (remember now too, I assume a value set underpins behaviour, and I tend to see values as absolute, meaning if I act a certain way in situation A then I do so in situation B etc.)

So, fine, let's leave those thoughts for a minute - suffice it to say I have some lingering questions. After the debacle of the thread in question, I make this thread because I know that it's hard enough trying to verbalize my understanding of Fi and Fe without having to deal with being made fun of for doing so. I am confident (but not certain) that other Fi-ers feel that way too, and generally are hesitant to say so out loud, and I want to explore this more deeply. I want them to feel safe, here, to say it.

Enter the word ... goal. Suddenly I transport into the shoes of the Fe-ers ... who would look at this thread and say, "What is the goal of this thread? Here we go again, more talking, talking, talking to no purpose ... there will be more dissension that I will have to deal with ... I wish these Fi-ers would just shut up already!" And so I asked myself, what is the goal of this thread? I can tell you the purpose of the thread ... but the goal? The purpose is inform, to help foster understanding and communication, to unite a common POV. The goal is ... to be recognized and our POV be taken seriously? So, I dig a little deeper, what is the goal? And I discovered - there was no goal. I didn't make the thread with any other goal than to serve a purpose of understanding.

No wonder this drives Fe-ers nuts. If, like Te-ers, you are "Let's cut to the chase, what's the point already?" even this preamble to my revelation will be painful to read.

So, I will get to the point dear Fe-ers:

Fi-ers find different behaviour harassing than Fe-ers. It's no less distressing for us to be harassed in this way than it is for you to find emotional threads difficult to deal with. So I propose:

1.) That all Fi-ers make a point of reporting posts and threads to the mods where someone descends to personal attack (ad hominem arguments) to undermine an individual's right to freedom of speech without defamation or censorship. Stop putting up with it; if the Fe-ers don't know it's bothering you, they never will because their Fe filters are calibrated differently than yours.

2.) That people who continually attack Fi-ers (or anyone else) in this manner are banned from the forum. The forum seems especially effective at protecting the Fe perspective but not so much the Fi one. This is evidenced by the feedback liberally found throughout this thread.

3.) That an Fi dom mod is brought to the admin staff (don't think we have one anymore) who can advocate and help interpret at the individual level what's going on when someone is having an "emo-meltdown", bearing in mind these happen to all types and Fi-ers have a unique vantage point and insight to offer in these situations.

How's that? Does that help?

And as for explaining those other questions above, suffice it to say - very, very insightful. Won't overload this thread with that.

"Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
― Eleanor Roosevelt

"When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad."
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

You're onto something with the Fe goal thing. This is indeed what frustrates Fe-ers when people start threads that stir up loads of controversy to deal with, but which ultimately don't change anything. It seems incomprehensible (from a goal oriented standpoint) to start a discussion that in the end doesn't do anything. I would imagine that Te feels the same way about Ti discussions.

I like it that you've done some thinking about what may work better than the present situation. I think it is important to see a variety of perspectives on how more people can be accommodated effectively.

As far as mods though - Cze Cze is an ENFP and Ivy is an INFP. I believe Geoff is also an INFP (that's what he has listed, although I've heard rumbles of INTP, so not sure about him). Highlander is an INTJ. Geoff is frequently away, but the rest are very active mods. Fi is represented on the modstaff.

I'm not sure I'm with you on banning anyone who expresses a lack of understanding for Fi though. While I don't think attacks on a person are permissible, attacks on an idea/belief/way of making a point aren't outlawed. If we were to extend the rules to subject matter and communication style as well, I think that could end up breaking off some valuable conversations. Some posters are extremely outspoken in their thoughts about sex, religion or politics. I often disagree, but if we were to make the environment feel 100% welcoming or safe without the need to defend the point of view being expressed, I think it would make for a limited and very sanitized forum. I'm not minimizing your suggestion, just wondering how you would envision it working in practicality.

I think there is a burden on Fi users to explain what their purpose is and even that they don't have a goal per se in discussing certain things. I believe this would go a long way in warding off Fe frustrations directed their way, since they would understand that a goal isn't the objective, therefore it is not that Fi-ers are doing a poor job of making their point or that they are just whining to each other. A lot of the comments directed towards Fi users have a lot to do with not understanding that the objectives for discussion are completely different.

Notice that it is not Fi across the board that gets attacked. It seems to me that there are Fi users on here who are not necessarily using pseudo Fe speak, they are true to themselves, but they still get heard. Some are even quite open about expressing their wariness of Fe, and yet their words are still accepted. This has a lot to do with the way they approach it. Would you say that this is an issue of Fe imposing a goal on them, rather than them expressing themselves in a more native tongue kind of way? I'm not saying that greater understanding isn't needed on Fe-er's parts too, but I'm not sure about banning. Can you give me a more specific example of what kind of behaviour you are referring to? Is it something like we saw evidenced in the Introverted Thinking Guide or more general expressions of dislike for Fi perspectives?

As far as reporting posts, this what we've been begging everyone to do all along! Consistently I get the response from Fi users that they aren't snitches and they feel that's underhanded and not their style. Do you see any way of overcoming that sentiment? If we don't know about what's happening, we can't take steps to improve the situation. Right now we are working on the issue of those who are indirectly trolling on a consistent basis, who seem to skate near the line but not cross it. I agree that issue needs to be addressed and I think it may help the situation. In this forum, I see an extraordinarily high level of disclosure in comparison to other forums. To me, that indicates that a lot of people do feel safe expressing themselves, including Fi users. However, it's certainly possible that there's a lot that goes under the radar and if that's the case, then we need to raise awareness so that we can better respond.